So at Connecticon there’s going to be a panel on friendzones.
I find this very problematic. I really want whoever runs Connecticon to maybe rethink this, and read up on how people use friendzones to harass other people. I feel, as Connecticon is stated as a FAMILY-oriented convention, you should either make this panel 18+ or remove it. Many men already harass women at conventions, and a panel about friendzones(which in reality, are just people getting mad that someone doesn’t return their romantic intrest and feel that the other person, usually a women, is obligated to love them because they’re nice.) it’s very problematic, and makes me kind of nervous.
So, Connecticon staff, I would appreciate you looking over that panel, and maybe making an age limit for it. Thank you for your time.
there is nothing romantic about
- not knowing you’re beautiful
- loving someone until they learn to love themselves
please stop romanticizing low self esteem.
it’s one thing to love a person who happens to have low self esteem
it’s another thing to frame low self esteem as a desirable trait.
I think I’ve talked about it before but here it is again.
The ISIS construction! Spelled like the mythological figure but pronounced like the English verb — “is is.” And I feel like talking about it!!
Note that there are English sentences which also result in two adjacent occurrences of the verb “is.”
- What it is is a veiled criticism of the patriarchy!
These involve a bi-clausal structure in which both the subordinate and matrix clause have “is” as the main verb. In essence, the subordinate clause is acting as the subject of the main clause. Here it is again, with each clause in brackets.
- [[What it is] is a veiled criticism of the patriarchy!]
Two verbs, two clauses. All good.
Here’s where it gets interesting: more and more often, you can find cases where people use two adjacent occurrences of the verb “is” — WITHOUT the bi-clausal structure!
- The thing is is that the patriarchy is problematic!
In the first example I gave you, the subject of the sentence is a subordinate clause — “what it is.” Here, the subject of the sentence is a noun phrase — “the thing.” Here it is again with the subject in brackets.
- [[The thing] is is that the patriarchy is problematic!]
Two verbs, one clause. Weird!!
This is the ISIS construction. It’s not something you can pass of easily as “bad English,” because some of the best examples I’ve heard occurred at academic conferences, on the news, or otherwise in highly formal contexts. It seems most likely that it’s a prosodic effect — I’ve talked about this interpretation of it before. It has something to do with putting the main stress on the verb “is,” leading to a sort of “doubling” effect where you add another, unstressed copy of the same verb.
So there it is. ISIS! Best name, best construction.
This paper argues against the prosodic/disfluency explanation and states it’s basically an “Assertive” construction.
When I use it, it’s because I’m parsing the sentences as [The thing is] [is that the patriarchy is problematic], where “The thing is” is a sort of introductory phrase saying “Here I am going to explain you a thing”
You know, the one that gives housewives/full-time mothers a pension— wages for housework?
It’s ONLY A HUGE VICTORY FOR FEMINISM, SOCIALISM, AND WOMEN OF COLOR. Not a big deal or anything. Tumblr is mysteriously silent about this.
dont be mean
be median or mode
damn math fandom bloggers
shut up we have a good range of jokes
this is our domain
guys we’re forgetting the point of this post and going off on a tangent
how did a three-word post cos this many puns
Truly it’s a cardinal sine.
Now let’s not go off on a tangent…